Quoting:
I'm going to remain carefully apolitical for this one, but I'm curious to see what reactions will be.

Quotes are taken from an English anti-establishment magazine called schnews.org. The link is:

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news367.htm

Schnews has a bias, much like any Presidential speech will have a bias, and there's certainly as much rhetoric in there as there is in anything a politician says. But I think the statistics are probably valid; there's no point in directly lying. what do we all think?

Tuesday (6th August) was also the 12th anniversary of the imposition of sanctions on Iraq - where another Hiroshima is taking place. In a report published three years ago, the United Nations Children’s Fund said that between 1991 and 1998 economic sanctions contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children under the age of five. These deaths weren’t caused by sanctions alone, however. Other factors have also contributed to the high child mortality rate, including the after-effects of the Gulf War, where the country’s infrastructure, namely water and sewage treatment facilities, was deliberately destroyed. In addition, depleted uranium from tank shells and bombs used in the Gulf War has caused cancer in many children. This situation was worsened by the Iraqi government not taking all available measures to prevent the massive increase in child mortality. Dr.Ginan Ghalib Hassen, an Iraq paediatrician said, “I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. It is almost exactly the same here; we have an increased percentage of congenital malformation, an increase of malignancy, leukaemia, and brain tumours.”

During the Gulf War, more than 300 tons of depleted uranium was used in weapons against the country. On impact, they left a residue of radioactive dust. This dust, travelling where the wind blows, remains radioactive for 4,500 million years and as a result, there is now an epidemic of cancer throughout Iraq causing babies to be born without eyes, limbs, genitalia, and sometimes with their organs on the outside of their bodies.

Bush and Blair say Saddam Hussein is still a threat to the world but Scott Ritter, for five years a senior weapons inspector in Iraq who meticulously checked out the countries chemical, biological and weapons infrastructure, said “If I had to quantify Iraq’s threat, I would say (it is) zero.”


End Quote

Where do I start? Well how about depleted urainium? For some real facts on depleted urainium, go here:

http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact257.html

This is from the world health organization, some key points:

1.  The main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials.

2.  A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts to local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the possibility of significant exposure to the local populations was found to be very low.

3.  Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. The greatest potential for DU exposure will follow a conflict where DU munitions are used.

 You know what else would have prevented the sanctions aginst Iraq?  Not invading kuwait, hey it would of prevented the depleted urainium too. Lets not forget sadam gased his own people. The US did make a mistake, not taking him out in 1991.  My question is what is the rest of the world so scared of?  The Us can easily change the leadership in Iraq without our so called allies help.  What if Sadam stays in power and another 9/11 takes place?  Lets see how much oppossed Europe is when Rome, Antwerp, or Berlin gets hit.  

 Don't even get me started on the UN, I'm sorry we even set up that organization, Just a way for other countries to blame the US for everything thats wrong in the world.  It became evident this week in the UN enviromental summit.  The Un has become an organization aginst Freedom and Liberty.

 I'll talk about Scott Ritter Now.  A few years ago after his team was kicked out of Iraq, the Us senate had a hearing and Mr. ritters comments were the exact opposite of what they are today.  The reason he changed his Opinion? He was embarressed by Senator Joseph Bidden (D-DE).  Mr. Ritter, not wanting to be embaresed like that again, was quick to change his opinion.  

   



 

Quoting:
Where do I start? Well how about depleted urainium?
End Quote

You got there before me - radiation is not the problem from DU, heavy metal poisoning, OTOH, is.  You'd get increases especially in things like kidney dysfunction, but not cancers.

Quoting:
Regarding Screwball's comments about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait: is the suggestion being made that the Iraqi people deserve to have the quoted half million under-5s die because Saddam Hussein chose to invade Kuwait? And if so, I think it raises the question 'Is it always morally right to invade a country that chooses to invade another country?' Even at the cost of massive civillian casualties?
End Quote

It's one of those insane pride things: we (that is the West as a whole) don't want to relax sanctions as it would look like Saddam had "won" - at least, he would be claiming it as a victory.  However, he has more than enough money to spend on his people if he desires, but won't as the current scenario is the perfect propaganda tool: "all you nasty westerners are killing the children of my country with your sanctions", while he uses the money building presidential palaces (two new ones have gone up since start of sanctions, IIRC) and buying arms on the black market.

Personally, I think the West's stance that he has enough money to spend on his own population, but chooses not to, is misguided as the people of Iraq don't hear that message.

Taken from the article:

Quoting:This situation was worsened by the Iraqi government not taking all available measures to prevent the massive increase in child mortality. End Quote

"not taking all available measures" should read "not taking ANY" - pretty much all medical supplies in Iraq at the moment seem to come from outside aid (and Saddam keeps trying to stop that, too - ISTM he wants his people to suffer in the international media spotlight)

My opinion comes down to this: we should get rid of sanctions as they're not having any effect on the people who most deserve it.  Stop treating Saddam Hussein as some kind of international bogeyman, and more as the little tinpot dictator he is: not worth all the time and trouble we're spending on him.  Besides, he's getting on now, and will probably die of natural causes within a few years.

One thing that should be done for the people of Iraq is to set up a nearby television/radio transmitter, with BBC (CNN as many as possible) outside news coverage so that the Iraqis get the idea that it's not all bad guys out here, and they'd have a much better life without Saddam.  Until the people realise this, he's got it easy.  A attack on Iraq by the US is going to make things worse, not better.

Phil

Quoting:
There's a mischievous part of me that wonders what the average Iraqi citizen would make of Western broadcasts regarding the proposed invasion of their country, though.End Quote

It would probably be enlightening for them to realize that there is quite an avid debate - I'll bet it wouldn't take the average Iraqi citizen long to learn more about a possible invasion of Iraq than they ever knew about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...

Phil

Quoting:



As for the environment thing. Well, the USA IS still the world's biggest polluter. You've read this before and will in the future, but this is a country composed of, what? Something like 20% of the world's population? And we use 80% of the world's resources! We're the biggest producers of garbage too. Hooray for being number one, yet again.

End Quote

Lets not Forget the US is also the biggest supporter for enviromental causes no matter how far fetched they may seem.  Do You know that there are more Forrests in the US now than when the Pilgrims landed at plymouth rock?  Poluting Industries in thUS have more stringent Guidlines than anywhere else in the world.  I trully Believe that the rest of the world should be brought up to our standards instead of trying to sink us down to thier level.

Quoting:


... but... we got more weapons of mass destruction stock piled here than any other country in the world (and we're the only country in history to use the A-bomb - on civilian targets, no less). Atomic weapons aside, we've also bombed tons of civilian targets, but instead of calling it terrorism, they call it collateral damage. Gee, it sounds soooo much better when it's spun that way by the politicobigwigs (all belonging to the same party, of course - The All Mighty Dollar$$$$ party).

End Quote

But before we used the A-bomb we did give Japan a chance to surender, You can read the telegrams Here:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/bombing-hiroshima.html

 When Japan refused to surrender Mr. Truman had to wiegh the loss of american lives that would come from an invasion of Japan vs. the loss of Japanese lives that would come from using the bomb, I may not be here today to type this if he hadn't of chose the latter.  

 As for the colladeral Damage, unfortunately accidents happen. I wish we could of schanged the goverment in Afgahnistan without as many civilian casualties.  Although one act of our own terrorism is when Clinton bombed an asprin factory to get our mind off of Monica.

Quoting:


In 20th century history, the USA has also been against freedom and liberty (for others) and even to-day have no qualms about having very dangerous and repressive dictatorships such as those in China and Pakistan as our "allies" (there it is again; that spin they do) - talk about a powder keg situation in central Asia. I'm glad the US has no backing on this Iraq fiasco. Perhaps it will, if only for a brief moment, make them realize that their "help" and "aid" is not needed at all. That what everyone else really wants is for the US to remove its snout out of other governments' affairs. Of course, Big Money speaks louder, so it will only be a brief moment (remember, we taxpayers are footing the bill for Israel's agressive-defense pretty much - $3 BILLION every year the last time I checked - thank your PACs for that ;) ).

Tarzan Boy
End Quote

 I disagree foriegn countries want our money, they just don't want what comes with it.  It's the Basic mentally of Why should they have what we do not?  I Agree that we shouldn't give aide to other nations.  I do not believe that the Us is as fault for all the worlds problems, and everything we have done has been a disaster.  I will say this though, there are elected representitives in the US goverment right now who are aginst freedom and liberty, theses same people think Government knows how to spend your money better than you.  

(Three responces, one for each point  ;))

Quoting:


But before we used the A-bomb we did give Japan a chance to surender, You can read the telegrams Here:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/bombing-hiroshima.html

 When Japan refused to surrender Mr. Roosevelt had to wiegh the loss of american lives that would come from an invasion of Japan vs. the loss of Japanese lives that would come from using the bomb, I may not be here today to type this if he hadn't of chose the latter.  

 As for the colladeral Damage, unfortunately accidents happen. I wish we could of schanged the goverment in Afgahnistan without as many civilian casualties.  Although one act of our own terrorism is when Clinton bombed an asprin factory to get our mind off of Monica.
End Quote

Harry Truman was the president who decided to drop the bomb.  The United States was the only country to drop an atomic bomb because they were the only country to develop it during World War II.  Basically, the only difference between an atomic bomb and the incendiary bombs used by all sides in the war was the destructiveness of the new weapon.  The casuality rate of fire bombing was about 10-15%; the casuality rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about 55%.  The atomic bomb is a very efficient killer.
There's a site (http://www.historynewsnetwork.org) that has an interesting mock trial of Truman for his role in the atomic bombing decision.  

Quoting:


Harry Truman was the president who decided to drop the bomb.  The United States was the only country to drop an atomic bomb because they were the only country to develop it during World War II.  Basically, the only difference between an atomic bomb and the incendiary bombs used by all sides in the war was the destructiveness of the new weapon.  The casuality rate of fire bombing was about 10-15%; the casuality rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about 55%.  The atomic bomb is a very efficient killer.
There's a site (http://www.historynewsnetwork.org) that has an interesting mock trial of Truman for his role in the atomic bombing decision.  
End Quote

I'm sorry I messed up, It's late I had a long day. I have been to this site, and it does apear to have just a tad of bias.  Also the lies are apearent in the top news story of the day.  Liberals have been slanting the truth in textbooks, not conservatives maybe there just upset because they can't induct the kids of texas into their lifestyle.